So does that mean 61 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 a hundred percent? Because the question was what percentage.
So what percentage of the work that has been done was land assembly before you realized that your costs had doubled?
We... Let me -- The number of dangerous -- We have, like -- When we did the 2000 survey, we had about 26,000 vacancies. And before what we -- what we did last year was primarily focused on... was -- I mean, we didn't get that much off the ground. My understanding is we're primarily focused on dangerous buildings.
We haven't done unsafe buildings or things like that. Or if we have, it's --
My question is just simply what percentage -- 62 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04
Yeah, you can get back to me on it; but that's the question, I would think, that you would have the answer to, to know what percentage you did for land assembly versus just because it was dangerous.
We didn't do any for land assembly. We have always said that the focus of the NTI bonds for demolition is -- and that's the objective of the program -- is demolition of dangerous properties.
So what we're doing now -- I'll just accept what you're saying, even though I that the land assembly numbers may be higher. 63 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 So what we're doing now is just knocking down dangerous buildings.
And in light of the fact that we're just knocking down dangerous buildings, not necessarily dealing with hyper vacancy and land banking and land assembly. Can you tell me, for the record, since the NTI program was approved, has housing production gone up, gone down, or stayed the same in those areas?
No. Since the NTI program was introduced in City Council and passed --
-- has housing production in those areas gone up, gone down, or stayed the same?
I would say, depending on the area, last year -- Remember, this is 64 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 only the second year.
-- in terms of the program. It's a comprehensive program. Where first you said 14,000, now you're saying five to seven. First you said for a combination of dangerous buildings and for land assembly, now you're saying just for dangerous buildings. I mean...
Well, just, if I may, Councilman, again, we've always said the objective of the residential demolition program was the demolition of structurally dangerous buildings. We've never said that the objective of the demolition program was for land assembly and development.
If I may -- If I may, what we said -- What we said is, of course, 65 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 if we're -- have, you know, vacant land available, and can get --
I don't believe that anyone who has even been a supporter of NTI within this body or across this City believes that you're just doing it to make the City safer. They believe that you're assembling land to transform neighborhoods.
We do have money for land assembly, that is correct. But again, in both years when we have written the program statement and budget, and we described the residential demolition program, we said that, you know, the focus of this was that demolition was to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the City --
Miss Smith, but you cannot answer the question directly whether the housing production has actually increased, decreased --
In the demolition target areas in some areas there is increased development activity. For example, one of the demolition target areas --
I actually need a comprehensive answer, in terms of whether as a whole production is up under NTI across NTI areas in general or whether it's not -- I don't want to here piecemeal it's up here, it's down there. I'm not interested in that type of comment this afternoon.
I would say that on the whole it's probably about the same. I would say it's about the same.
Can you tell me how much in private dollars have been leveraged from NTI investment?
$295 million in bond proceeds are going in in public money. How much in private money has been leveraged?
We have, for example -- I'm just giving this as an example. In land assembly, I would say that we would have --
Miss Smith, this afternoon -- I'm not trying to be rude, but this afternoon I'm not looking for any for examples. I'm not looking for in this part of town it's working this way. I'm looking for a comprehensive overview of the program. And you asked us for $25 million more. 68 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04
I can get that number back to you. I just -- I'm sorry, Councilman. I don't have it in my -- off the top of my head.
Excuse me; excuse me; excuse me. Since last spring when you asked for the money you asked for last spring?
Can you tell me what money has been leveraged last spring in terms of private dollars, since your last request for private dollars.
There were a number of low income housing tax credit projects that were approved that we used -- that NTI bond proceeds will be doing the land -- paying for the land assembly. That's an example. I don't have the exact number in my head. That's something I would get back to you on. 69 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04
Lastly, there was an excellent article in today's Inquirer about the Pennsylvania housing finance agency program, that basically said that they had allocated $27 million. And their return, in terms of additional investment -- I believe it was $184 million. I would expect this afternoon when you're asking for $25 million this same type of measurement to be offered, in terms of what your success is so far.
Generally, from my standpoint -- And I did deal more with business and economic development than housing. But just in terms of housing, I would think you would look at whether housing production is up; be able to compare on an annual basis, in terms of unit production. I would think you would look at how 70 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 much is leveraged, in terms of private dollars. I would think that you would know more definitively, in terms of demolition, if you're just doing demolition right now, in terms of dangerous buildings, whether that's going to positively or negatively impact your original goals.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. And good afternoon, Miss Smith and the other members of the panel. I'd like to take a slightly different approach to this. When the NTI program engages in the demolition of either a single property or a multitude of properties, what is the actual process, in terms of identifying who the owner is? And it's a multi question I have for you. And 71 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 what have we done or are we doing to recoup some of the costs?
What we do is, we first look at a target area. We go out and do an updated field survey. And there are a number of different departments that participate in that. And we work with the Council District office on the field survey. At that time we're looking for, you know, different conditions: Dangerous, imminently dangerous, vacant lots. We update our data bases. And we start putting out new violation notices. I mean, one of the things we've tried to be very careful about is make sure that we issue violation notices. And that's when the orange sticker a lot of times goes on the property. After that, there is a series of meetings that takes place, where we actually go through and look at the buildings that are going to be candidates for demolition because they are in fact 72 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 dangerous and need to come down. And then once we've identified those buildings, that list is put together with the, you know, estimated budget and submitted to the District Council's office for signature. Sometimes, depending on the District Council office, there may be a couple of community meetings or there could be leadership meetings with different offices that work that part of it slightly different. So, that's the first thing. So, everybody gets a notice, even if their building isn't going to be... COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Everybody meaning the owner of the property.
Yes, the owners. And notices go to the... you know, the last known record that we have. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And the notice if I'm... Correct me if I'm wrong --
Comes from the -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: -- basically 73 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 identifies the owner, and identifies the condition of the property, and what --
It lists the violations. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And lists the violations. And then there's a certain fine that is imposed if the owner does not make the necessary repairs to those violations.
Yes. Usually I think it reads something either, you know, if you don't -- It's like a repair or demolish. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You have a certain amount of days to make these listed repairs; and if not, there's a fine imposed.
Mm-hmm. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Are you familiar with a bill that I introduced and this Council passed about three years ago, which I always refer to as the broken window bill?
Yes. Mm-hmm. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: To date has the NTI program in any way, shape or fashion 74 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 enforced that legislation?
The Department of Licenses and Inspections I know has made some suggested changes to that Ordinance 6 and has gone into equity court in some limited cases trying to get -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Actually, I was in court on one case. Deputy Commissioner Sivigli (phonetic) is here, and he can attest to it. The maximum fine imposed -- that that court will handle is $10,000.
Mm-hmm. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: My concern is that when that bill was originally drafted, the intent of the bill, at least as far as I understood it, was to make the fines so exorbitant that the owner of the property would have to do one of maybe three things: Either make the necessary repairs, either decide to sell the property, or to give the property up to the CDC. And again, to date, with the exception of one property at 639 Catherine Street, I don't know of any other property 75 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 in the City of Philadelphia where that legislation has been used as an enforcement tool. And the reason why I'm concerned is, if we were using that legislation as an enforcement tool, the fines on those properties would be well over the actual value of the property. And because earlier in your testimony you testified something to the effect that we don't have -- may not have enough money to acquire all these properties because once we go through the demolition then we have to pay someone for the purpose of acquiring that property. If we were enforcing that legislation, the fines would certainly exceed the value, the market value, of those properties, and we wouldn't be spending a penny. In fact, in the best case scenario, we would be recouping the cost of the demolition. And that's where my concern is. 76 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 It is one thing -- And I can understand in the public's interest that we need to identify and remove dangerous properties in a timely fashion, whether or not we can identify the owner or we can get the owner into court in a timely fashion. But there are hundreds, if not thousands, of buildings throughout this City that have remained blighted and vacant for a number of years. And I'm not faulting this Administration because this Administration inherited them, as the last Administration, and probably the one before that. But here it is, we have a piece of meaningful legislation that would have and would address this very issue. This building I'm talking about at 639 Catherine Street has about 33 doors and windows. And in a round figure, if the bill -- the legislation that we put in when that bill was being enforced, every single day there would be $9,000 in fines on that building. 77 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 We're finally getting that owner, who has left the condition of this building in the condition that it is today for 5 years, has left this building sit in the 6 middle of Bella Vista for 22 years. 7 And up until this point his fines 8 may have been less than $10,000 over 22 9 years. So for his purpose this building 10 that he purchased 22 years ago for maybe 11 $40,000, the recent fair market value that 12 the Department of -- Redevelopment 13 Authority imposed on this property is 14 $500,000. 15 So, if we were -- And we want to 16 work on this because I have the developers 17 interested. We're going to have to go out 18 and lay out out of my NTI funds a half a 19 million dollars to take this property, so 20 that this owner and his estranged wife, who 21 have been claiming the reason they can't 22 sell this property is they're involved in a divorce for 22 years, want to profit on the taxpayers of this City, to the tune of $450,000. 78 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 So... I mean, that's just one example. But there are other examples, many examples, thousands of them out there. And I just can't believe that it's been taking us all this time to utilize a tool that was available to the Department. I don't mean this to be critical. It's just one of those things that government just kind of gets hung up about. We should be fining these people who let these properties deteriorate to the condition that they're in, that they become imminently dangerous. ) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And every effort should be made to recoup the cost of maintaining and demolishing that property, not at the expense of the taxpayers but at the expense of the person who owns it.
And I don't see any of that being discussed in this conversation because it could certainly -- And I'm not suggesting we're going to collect from everybody; I understand that. 79 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 But a small -- percent of what's out there would probably cover the cost of the $25 million we're looking for, and have money left over. And why are we not doing it, I guess, is my good question.
Again, I know we started 8 using it. I know that the court wouldn't 9 go over a certain amount on the Catherine 10 Street property, and -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We got up to $10,000. Anything over $10,000 we can't -- the Municipal Court does not have the authority to hear the case. So now we have to go back --
So it should probably be -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: -- and Bob and his team have put together a whole list. We're up to about a million dollars in fines.
Mm-hmm. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We're going to 80 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 get into court, I think, sometime in April, hopefully. But I just think we've made this thing a lot more difficult. And when I did the bill originally, it was before NTI. And then when NTI was being thought of, I thought this was a great opportunity for to us take advantage of this. And we really haven't done it. And if we're going to go out with these teams of people that you spoke about, identify blighted properties, dangerous properties, make a list, record them, notify the owner, from that day going forward the clock should start ticking. $300 for every door and window that has gone unreplaced should start ticking. I mean, I'm not a computer buff. But you've got to be able to figure out -- You plug the address in, and from day one $300 per opening. And if it's six openings, $1800 a day. And I'll tell you what will happen. Because the only other incidents that I 81 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 know that this took place in my District is at 708 South Warnock Street. Within 48 hours after the owner of that property received notice about the $300 a day, he put the property up for sale. And he sold it in two weeks because he didn't want to be stuck with all those fines. So this is a tool that we should be using in conjunction with what we're trying to be doing here, and not always -- I mean, we're asking the taxpayers to pay for all this stuff. It's the City's responsibility removing these properties, but the owners have never been held accountable, that I can see. (Applause.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So, somewhat of a question; more of a statement, I guess. But that's something I would really like to see happen.
And I think we're beginning to get the mechanism in place. I 82 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 know it took us longer than it probably should have. But I know we started -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Sivigli walked over to me right before this hearing and said that they're going to start enforcing it. But, you know, we have a list... I assume we have a list of those vacant, derelict properties because those are the houses that are on this list for demolition. You can guesstimate that everybody has at least six windows and a door just in the front of the building. Forget the back. So you got $1800 a day on every property that's on this list that we should be imposing those fines, and let the owner -- Let the owners -- Put some responsibility on the owner. Let them have to come and plead their case in front of a Judge.
Okay. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. Thank 83 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 you. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. Yes. MR. McCALLA: Good afternoon. I'm Jay McCalla (phonetic).
Councilman Cohen. I'm sorry I didn't hear you, Councilman.
I said I'm anxious, as one of members of the committee, to be recognized.
We have Councilman Clarke, Councilman Rizzo, Councilman Nutter, Councilwoman Tasco, and 84 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 you. Councilman Nutter had his first go-around so we'll recognize you before that.
I know. You know, now your light's not on at all. Please proceed. MR. McCALLA: I'll pass for the moment. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon again. Earlier in the discussion there was a reference to using Sheriff's sales as an acquisition process. Can you run me through the Sheriff sale process and the time frame versus condemnation?
I've heard so many 85 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 different stories about the time frame for Sheriff's sales. At present, my understanding, it can take about two years almost from start to finish. One of the things, that we're going to start working with the Law Department and the Revenue Department, beginning to look if we can move packages, maybe move a group of properties together through the process. A lot of times what happens, if -- if -- you know, making sure we have all our liens in so that we can bid it up and try to move groups together, instead of let them kind of straggle through. That's one of the things that we're starting to look at.
So you'll have a group of properties taking two years, as opposed to a single property.
Well, it's -- Yes. In other words, trying to do them as a bundle -- 86 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04
Some Council members are having difficulty hearing you.
But in terms of the time frame, I mean, generally people say about two years. But there's been horror stories about it, taking up to five years. But I would say --
So that's not really a feasible approach to development.
I mean, there's a couple of challenges when you're doing development. If, for example, let's say you take ten properties through at a time, and you 87 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 can -- the City gets site control of nine and gets outbidded on its equity on one, that can make it more difficult. But it might be a good way to take, you know, lots that have been demolished. That's what we're starting to look at. If there's a group of developers who may be interested, say, in a particular neighborhood, can we take, you know, five or ten properties through, you know, with as many liens on them as possible, including fines and the like, and take them through as a group, we might be able to have more equity interest and maybe control the package.
So, I mean, it was suggested earlier that possibly, particularly as it relates to land 88 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 assembly -- and I'm assuming that you're only assembling land for purposes of development --
I mean, we're not aggressively looking to bring property into the City's inventory, unless there's a reasonable possibility of a -- of a...
So that Sheriff sale thing is off the table. I mean, realistically, it's not a strategy.
I mean -- And since we don't have enough acquisition dollars, there are a lot of demolished lots that there may not be an immediate development interest, so the fact that it takes two years is not as critical.
I mean, why would we -- If we're not going to... 89 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04
If we're not going to develop the lots, why are we acquire the properties at all?
So that if in the future someone comes along, we'll already have title. I mean, I think that's still a very important principal around this concept of how to begin to bank land. Right now, though, you know, we're out of money to condemn every vacant lot that we demolish, I mean, because we've given priority to development projects that are going forward, and other priorities in different Council Districts. But there's still going to be a lot of vacant lots that just sitting there. And we're looking at the feasibility of just starting to use Sheriff's sale. And I'm not even sure at this point how many properties the system can even manage at this point in time. That's one of the things that we're going to be looking at. 90 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04
Okay. With respects to participation in the demolition process, you indicate that you've reached your goals. Where are we at with creating prime contractors? I know a lot of the subcontractors in some of the employment goals, obviously we've done okay. But I'm concerned about the possibility of creating primes. I know early on in the process we thought, because as we thought we controlled this process, and hearing some of these numbers on the demolition I'm not really sure about that, but we thought we had some level of control. We thought that the likelihood of creating opportunities for prime contractors, minorities, disadvantaged is pretty high. And some of the things that I've been hearing, that that's not necessarily the case, that we're getting some decent numbers on the subs, but we're not really 91 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 getting minorities coming in as prime contractors.
As part of the Emerging Contractors Program there were about 9 companies or businesses that completed the 10 classroom training component. And that was 11 in August of last year. 12 Since that time, we've been working 13 with up to about 14, I think, at this point 14 who have been doing what we call in the 15 field demolition. 16 It's not fair to expect someone to 17 go immediately from the classroom to 18 actively bidding on demolition projects. 19 So so far about 47 houses has been 20 demolished, with about... about 14 small, prime -- I mean, contractors out of the chamber program. We are... also begun to let some smaller bid packages for individuals to bid as part of the City's procurement process. 92 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 There's still some procurement issues, like surety bond things, that we have to work through. But we started to break up some of the larger bid packages into three, six, five property bid packages so that these new contractors are in a position to bid on them.
Let me back up a little bit. Aren't there a number of existing demolition firms, minority firms, that were in place that would not have had to have gone through the Emerging Contractors Program?
Yes. We've been getting -- I know in the last couple of bids, there's been one contractor that's been bidding on the regular larger packages. Some of the other ones have not maybe partnering with a couple of people, but a lot of them were coming under the subcontracting. Then there's the field minority contractors -- 93 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04
Hold on. Hold it; hold it; hold it. Hold it, Miss Smith. So prior to the implementation of this program, we had a number of existing demolition contractors --
-- who were not required to go through the Emerging Contractors Program.
Did we work with those companies to position them to bid as a prime on the contracts that have been coming out --
-- there were a number of conversations, and some were working bidding on the emergency curbside program, 94 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 as opposed to the procurement -- the targeted -- the target area program. So some continued to -- or went and worked on the emergency contractor program. But I think it was about two or three prior to NTI that was bidding regularly, from what I recall. I can check on that.
Well, what I'm trying to get at, because it was our belief that there would be opportunities to enhance the companies, these particular companies. And I'll ask it again. The companies that existed prior to the Emerging Contractors Program, who had the wherewithal to bid on projects, maybe not as large as we would have liked, did we work with those companies --
-- to put them in a position to bid on these large bid --
-- packages that 95 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 are coming out --
That's -- I'll ask maybe Jay to talk about the specifics of that. But we did work with, talk with a number. Some elected to stay in the emergency curbside program and prefer bidding under that one, as opposed to going through a tradition of procurement process with the City, which is a much more complicated process.
And you had more of the contractors meeting. MR. McCALLA: Councilman, could you restate it, please -- I'm Jay McCalla, Deputy Managing Director -- for the record.
Do you want me 96 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 to repeat the question? MR. McCALLA: Please.
The question was, prior to the implementation of the NTI program and during its inception there was the thought, at least in my mind, that there would be opportunities for existing demolition contractors: Minorities, females, disadvantaged, to grow their company because we controlled this process. And while I understand the Emerging Contractors Program and the classes -- why that essentially brings people who are either workers or very small capacity to bid as subcontractors, what I wanted to know, have we and did we seek contractors -- preexisting contractors who had the wherewithal to bid on the contract but not necessarily at a large level, as some of these bid packages are, that we work with them to put them in a position to bid on a 100 to 50 bid package number or something like that? MR. McCALLA: Councilman, we -- 97 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04
If so, who were they? And what did we do to assist them to bring them to this level? Because what I'm hearing is that, at least on the street, that there has not been a successful bid by a minority as a prime on a demolition contract. And moving -- I mean, we've been in this for two years now. I want to know why not, and what we're doing to accommodate that. MR. McCALLA: Councilman, we have consciously created small bid packages, with the intention of escalating them in size. The first would be bid packages of 3 to 7 houses. And then the next step would be a series of demolitions, 7 to 15 houses, and then 15 -- excuse me -- to about 25 or 30. And then that would result in the mainstreaming of a small firm's ability to compete for the larger and larger packages. There's supervision questions. That is to say, a small firm hiring an additional supervisor. There is the 98 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 escalation in the bonding requirements, the more properties that are in a demolition package. So we wanted to have the smaller firms demonstrate for themselves the ability to grow in these steps three to seven --
Do you have any larger minority firms? MR. McCALLA: One large firm that has been bidding is LLP. They're in demolition. They have bidded very competitively, very aggressively over the last several packages under NTI. They're able to do the larger ones. But we've had conversations with ABC, owned by Luther Johnson, and at least one or two others about how to -- And one firm I've tried to vigorously encourage is Eugene Pullins.
Right. MR. McCALLA: I don't know exactly the name of the concern, but it's one of the best demolition contractors we have in Philadelphia. 99 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 He's found his niche with curbside demolitions. And there is -- The difference between curbside and NTI targeted is, a curbside firm posts one nominal bond that's renewable annually because they're not doing a large scale. They may do five or six at a time, at the best, because these are emergencies. But when it comes to the mainstream targeted demolition, where they may be getting 50 now, then another 50, and then another hundred, the bonding requirements are different because the performance and liability differences are higher. So --
What are we doing -- MR. McCALLA: -- the key is bonding.
What are we doing to support the bonding requirements in the City?
Yeah. Well, that has been a consistent issue. One suggestion is, instead of the City using its standard performance bond and language, which is 100 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 very -- some people feel it's very onerous, it's been suggested that we look at the AIA bond form. Both the Law Department's working with the Procurement Commissioner and the Risk Manager about trying to come up with a different kind of performance bond for our procurement projects. And I'm hoping to have that issue resolved by the end of this month. They've been working diligently on that in the last couple of weeks.
Okay. I'd like to, through the Committee Chair, be kept abreast of that, because it was the full intent of at least this member to give contractors the opportunity to grow. I would hate for us to spend this much City dollars, and at the end of the day you come out with companies that are at the level that they were prior to the implementation of this program.
That would not be 101 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 a good thing.
And there have been -- there have been, while not in the prime area, there have been a number of contractors that have been bidding or being made part of subcontracting opportunities of significant size, with respect to the NTI demolition work. In fact, that was one of the reasons why we changed the... instead of letting separate prime contracts out, why we changed the methodology for bidding out the targeted program because it would offer more subcontracting opportunities.
I was passed a note to ask you about wrap-up insurance.
That's the OCIP, Owners Control of Insurance Program. That's -- Because of the scale of the demolitions in the targeted program, we approved the... the City... So, like buying, I call it bulk insurance, a group insurance, that does not relieve the contractor from submitting paperwork to 102 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 demonstrate that they're, you know, are able to carry out the job.
-- still an administrative function required, but this does in fact enhance the ability to get the level of bond that is required, right?
Well, it's insurance. That's different from the performance bond. It's insurance, like if somebody falls on the job type stuff versus the performance bond which is like completing the project.
Okay. One other question. In earlier discussion with Councilman Goode, there was some talk of demolition as a part of land acquisition in preparation for development. I believed earlier, in the discussion on the implementation of NTI, that this would be just used as a tool for site prep for development. As a matter of fact, in my District, in the Cecil B. Moore Area, I believe that 103 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 we're utilizing NTI bond proceeds to demolish and acquire property.
I mean, I -- That was a part of the process that I thought it enabled to us offset the traditional strategy of spending Community Development Block Grant dollars which were diminishing as we speak.
And we would leverage it with NTI dollars, so we can demolish and prepare land, as opposed to spending a million dollars for site preparation for development...
It's -- It's -- It's almost I don't want to say splitting hairs; but, you know, we do -- when we -- because of the type of bonds we're using, the demolition is for public safety. Now, once the building is down, we use another type of resource to take the land in. So it's a question of making sure that they all fit it together. But in every area of the City we may not immediately have a development plan. Some of the examples I was going to site --
-- was Cecil B. Moore Moore and Strawberry Mansion, and some of the projects in Mantua that's coming up, and things of that nature.
So we have to say in public that all -- that it is for public safety, although we clearly know internally that there is a strong likelihood that this --
Sometimes there are development projects that are being cued up 105 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 to take advantage of the land that once it's demolished and acquired.
Okay. Okay. In view of fairness, Madam President, I defer to the next member in line.
Miss Smith, since I really want to make sure I understand what you said earlier about demolition cost, let's cut out all of the new additions to what we used to call a demolition. Forget the fence, the land. Are demolitions at the same amount to do what we once did, that L & I --
They're pretty close to it. We're at about 13,000 if you just take down the house. And L & I under emergency curbside, it's a little bit less than that to just take down the house. One of the differences is the fact, for example, under the emergency curbside program, the prevailing wages and triggered if you're under 25,000. But when we start packaging that, we're above that. There is other insurance related and other costs that get built into the planned demolitions or the target demolitions, as far as emergency curbside. But if you look at the cost of just taking down the house, you know, what it was, we're pretty close to that.
Tell me... It makes sense that there's so much business that the costs of demolition should come 107 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 down. And again, I'm not asking you to point a finger at anyone. But is there a way that the demolition business could, instead of us controlling it, that they control us? Is there a way that there's: Well, you get this group over there; we'll get that group? It sounds to me that the prices should be coming down, rather than going up. And I can't imagine how we're not able to do this with --
Well, one of the -- I think one of our challenges is that earlier on, and particularly for our larger bid packages, we only had three firms actively bidding. We've started to, you know, break the larger bid packages and put them out in some smaller subsets. In the last couple of bid packages we put out, we're getting more people bidding on them. And I think we have more 108 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 people bidding. You're getting more competition. There was -- Early on we had one bidder that came in very low, but he didn't stay in, doing the work, that initially we thought we would have lower numbers, based on their bids. But they did one project and haven't really bidded since then. So I think, you know, there's a number of players in the field. You know, we're hoping as we bring on some more of the smaller bid packages, that those numbers would be lower because more people can bid on them.
My final question is about the land assembly. And I believe -- What is it $15 million additional for fiscal year 2004?
Could you give us an example -- With all the land and all of the already City owned property, could you give me an example why we would need to go 109 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 out and spend $75 million for land acquisition? Give me an example of what you're going to spend $75 million on.